|
From: | Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] RFC: memory/hmp: Print owners/parents in "info mtree" |
Date: | Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:31:08 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 |
On 17/04/2018 14:18, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> What's the point of an object name if it cannot be unique? > It should be sufficient for it to be unique within parent's > scope and object_property_add_child() should make sure that > added object is unique within its parent's namespace. > Having named object from starters is useful as object > won't have to piggyback on parent (object_get_canonical_path_component) > when it need its own name. Then named object could use its name > freely anywhere including initfn, property setters/getters and > let object_property_add_child() take care of possible name > conflict. I agree that it looks nice, but I'm worried that people forget that the path component is only unique until object_unparent(). The use for DEVICE_DELETED events is already a bad thing... Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |